Loading
Excessive Force
Police Shootings in Oklahoma
When officers use deadly force without legal justification, the Constitution demands accountability. We have the federal court experience to overcome qualified immunity and hold shooters responsible.
Key Takeaways
- Immediate threat required: Officers can only shoot if suspect poses immediate danger
- No shooting fleeing suspects: Tennessee v. Garner prohibits shooting non-dangerous fleeing suspects
- 2-year deadline: Oklahoma Section 1983 claims must be filed within 2 years
- Preserve evidence now: Body camera footage can be deleted; contact us immediately
On This Page
The Legal Standard for Deadly Force
Two Supreme Court cases define when police shootings are constitutional:
Tennessee v. Garner (1985)
Officers may use deadly force only when the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious physical harm to officers or others.
"A police officer may not seize an unarmed, nondangerous suspect by shooting him dead."
Graham v. Connor (1989)
Courts use an "objective reasonableness" standard, judging the officer's actions from the perspective of a reasonable officer on scene—not with hindsight.
Three factors: (1) Severity of the crime, (2) Immediate threat posed, (3) Active resistance or attempted flight.
When Police Shootings Are Unconstitutional
We evaluate every shooting against these common patterns of unconstitutional deadly force:
No Weapon Present
Officer claimed to see a weapon, but none existed or victim was holding a phone, wallet, or other harmless object.
Suspect Was Complying
Victim was following commands, had hands up, or was not moving—yet officer fired.
Threat Had Ended
Suspect was already restrained, incapacitated, or no longer posed a threat when shots were fired.
Shooting a Fleeing Suspect
Victim was running away and posed no immediate threat to anyone when shot in the back.
No Warning Given
Officer fired without announcing police presence or giving suspect opportunity to comply.
Officer-Created Jeopardy
Officer's own tactical failures (rushing in, no cover, escalating) created the 'need' to shoot.
10th Circuit Case Law on Police Shootings
Oklahoma is in the 10th Circuit. These binding precedents establish when deadly force violates the Constitution:
| Case | Holding |
|---|---|
| Estate of Ceballos v. Husk | Shooting an unarmed, non-threatening person violates clearly established law. |
| Allen v. Muskogee | Officers cannot use deadly force against suspects who are merely non-compliant but not threatening. |
| Tenorio v. Pitzer | Excessive force claims survive when officer's account is contradicted by physical evidence. |
| Pauly v. White | Officer-created jeopardy can defeat qualified immunity—officers cannot manufacture dangerous situations then claim self-defense. |
Evidence We Gather in Shooting Cases
Time is critical. Agencies can legally delete body camera footage after a short retention period. We issue preservation letters immediately.
Video Evidence
- • Body camera footage
- • Dashcam recordings
- • Bystander cell phone video
- • Surveillance cameras
Official Records
- • 911 calls and dispatch logs
- • Incident reports
- • Autopsy/medical records
- • Ballistics analysis
Officer Background
- • Prior complaints
- • Disciplinary history
- • Training records
- • Use-of-force history
Overcoming Qualified Immunity
Qualified immunity is the biggest obstacle in police shooting cases. It protects officers unless their conduct violated "clearly established" constitutional rights. Here's how we defeat it:
1. Find Analogous Cases
We research 10th Circuit precedent to identify cases with sufficiently similar facts that put officers on notice their conduct was unconstitutional.
2. Argue Obvious Clarity
Some violations are so egregious that no prior case is needed. Shooting an unarmed, compliant person while they have their hands up is "obviously" unconstitutional.
3. Challenge the Officer's Version
Qualified immunity often hinges on accepting the officer's account. When video or physical evidence contradicts that account, the case goes to a jury.
Damages in Police Shooting Cases
Surviving Victim
- Medical expenses (past and future)
- Lost wages and earning capacity
- Pain and suffering
- Disability and disfigurement
- Emotional trauma and PTSD
- Punitive damages (individual officers)
Wrongful Death (Family)
- Loss of companionship
- Loss of financial support
- Loss of services and guidance
- Funeral and burial expenses
- Decedent's conscious pain and suffering
- Attorney's fees (Section 1988)
Frequently Asked Questions
Under Tennessee v. Garner, officers may use deadly force only when the suspect poses an immediate threat of serious physical harm to the officer or others. Shooting a fleeing suspect is unconstitutional unless the officer has probable cause to believe the suspect committed a crime involving serious physical harm AND poses an ongoing danger. The threat must exist at the moment of the shooting, not before.
Under Graham v. Connor, courts judge whether force was excessive from the perspective of a 'reasonable officer on the scene'—not with hindsight. Factors include: (1) severity of the crime, (2) whether the suspect posed an immediate threat, and (3) whether the suspect was actively resisting or evading. Officers don't need to be perfect, but they must be reasonable.
Yes. The key question is whether a reasonable officer would have perceived a threat. If body camera footage shows no weapon, if the 'weapon' was actually a phone or wallet, or if the officer failed to give commands before shooting, these facts undermine the claimed justification. We analyze every frame of available video.
Criminal charges and civil lawsuits have different standards. Criminal cases require proof 'beyond a reasonable doubt'; civil rights cases only require 'preponderance of the evidence' (more likely than not). Many officers are never charged but are found liable in civil court. A grand jury declining charges does not prevent a civil case.
Qualified immunity protects officers unless their conduct violated 'clearly established' constitutional rights. We overcome it by identifying 10th Circuit cases with similar facts that put officers on notice. We also argue 'obvious clarity'—some violations are so egregious that no prior case is needed. Shooting an unarmed, compliant person is one example.
Body camera and dashcam footage is crucial—we issue immediate preservation letters. We also obtain 911 calls, dispatch records, ballistics reports, autopsy/medical records, the officer's training records and complaint history, department use-of-force policies, and witness statements. Time is critical; agencies sometimes 'lose' or delete footage.
Yes, under Monell v. Dept. of Social Services. If the shooting resulted from a department policy, practice, or failure to train, the municipality can be liable. Evidence of similar prior shootings, inadequate training, or policies encouraging aggressive tactics strengthen municipal liability claims.
You may have a wrongful death claim under Section 1983 and Oklahoma law. As a surviving family member, you can recover damages for loss of companionship, support, and services, as well as the decedent's conscious pain and suffering before death. We work with your family through this devastating process.
In Oklahoma, Section 1983 claims have a 2-year statute of limitations from the date of the shooting. However, critical evidence can be lost or destroyed quickly. We recommend contacting an attorney within days of the incident to preserve body camera footage, witness memories, and other evidence.
Compensatory damages include medical bills, lost wages, pain and suffering, disability, disfigurement, and emotional trauma. If the victim died, families recover for loss of companionship, support, and funeral expenses. Punitive damages may be awarded against individual officers for malicious or reckless conduct. Under Section 1988, the government pays your attorney's fees if you win.
Officers often argue they had to make a 'split-second' decision and courts shouldn't second-guess them. We counter this by showing the officer created the dangerous situation through their own tactical failures—like rushing in without backup, failing to use cover, or escalating instead of de-escalating. Courts increasingly recognize 'officer-created jeopardy.'
Federal civil rights cases typically take 2-4 years from filing to resolution. Discovery (gathering evidence) takes 6-12 months. Qualified immunity motions can add delays but are sometimes resolved in our favor. Many cases settle before trial once video evidence demonstrates the shooting was unjustified.
Time Is Critical. Evidence Disappears.
Body camera footage can be deleted. Witnesses forget. The sooner you call, the stronger your case.
No Fee Unless We Win